- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Trump & The Left’s Identity Politics

I think Donald Trump’s whining about the ethnicity of the Hispanic judge in his Trump University case is shameful, and yet another example of his gross immaturity and narcissism. It is dangerous to have a presidential candidate openly question whether a judge can be fair because of his ethnic background.

That said, is this not what the Left does constantly, and has done for a long time? Claim that members of minority groups must have special privileges, because it is impossible for a white-majority society to be fair to them, on account of the majority being white, cisgendered and heterosexist?

For example, New York City is funding a summer jobs program … but it’s more than a jobs program [1]. As the reader who sent me that link said:

Everything, and I mean everything, is now about LGBT acceptance. Check out this story about the youth employment program in New York City. It seems like it’s actually a political re-education camp thinly disguises as a jobs program.

Businesses cannot participate unless they pledge to be allies. And the companies get special training to teach them how to be allies.

It’s a jobs program. Despite my libertarian leanings I have no problem with that. Teach a kid to work? OK. But they don’t even interview because it would allow someone to kinda maybe discriminate against LGBT kids. So they are being trained to know that… jobs just materialize. You get them. Without interviews.

Can anybody seriously doubt that a Hillary Clinton presidency will mean four more years of privileging approved Democratic Party grievance groups in law and policy? Trump’s childish caterwauling is obvious for what it is, but in principle, how is it different from left-liberals demanding special treatment because whites cannot be trusted to be fair?

If Trump’s whining about the Latino judge strikes you as racist and unjust, well, welcome to how many conservatives see the sham “diversity” ideology of contemporary liberalism.

change_me

It is deeply alarming to see institution after institution falling before this ideology. In Seattle, Matteo Ricci College has just placed Jodi Kelly, its dean, on paid leave [2]while it investigates whether or not she has been sufficiently sensitive to the Diverse:

After three weeks of Seattle U repeatedly stating it would not remove Kelly from her station, the MRC Coalition sees her being placed on leave as a win, Smith said, but Kelly continuing to receive salary is still an indicator of Seattle U’s support for her. There is also the potential for Kelly to be reinstated.

Following the announcement of Kelly’s leave, the MRC Coalition spent Wednesday night crafting a list of candidates and the desired qualifications they’d like to see from an interim dean.

“A woman of color would be phenomenal and something we derive,” Mohammad said.

But the protesters are unhappy not to be consulted over Kelly’s replacement:

“By not asking for the input of the coalition, it’s already decentering people of color,” Smith said, adding there are “loose ends” to tie up before the coalition considers ending its sit-in. “It will happen by the end of the school year.”

Mohammad said “Phase 2” for the coalition involves working with administrators to review and make positive changes to the college’s curriculum, which the group has criticized as being too Eurocentric and in need of diversification.

“We’re really entering Phase 2 of our organizing,” she said.

What have they been protesting at the Catholic college? From the MRC’s original statement: [3]

Once again, these concerns are urgent and necessitate an immediate response, to be handled with utmost severity and care. Dissatisfaction, traumatization, and boredom are realities within our collective MRC experiences, as well as being ridiculed, traumatized, othered, tokenized, and pathologized. These experiences have been profoundly damaging and erasing, with lasting effects on our mental and emotional well-being. Additionally, the curriculum in MRC is unsatisfactory as a Humanities program. For students to have their personal and ancestral voices erased in curriculum and conversation, only to be told that their experiences of pain are insignificant, is psychologically abusive.

In light of this college environment, multiple cohorts of students in both the Humanities for Teaching and Humanities for Leadership majors have joined together to write our truths and demand systemic change.

The Humanities program as it exists today ignores and erases the humanity of its students and of peoples around the globe. Humanity is defined as the human race, and as such studies in humanity must be about human beings collectively. We are diverse, with many different life experiences, also shaped by colonization, U.S. and Western imperialism, neo-liberal politics, and oppression under racist, sexist, classist, heteronormative and homophobic, trans*phobic, queerphobic, ableist, nationalistic, xenophobic systems, which perpetuate conquest, genocide of indigenous peoples, and pervasive systemic inequities. The world in which we live, and the realities of students at Seattle University are vastly complex and worthy of critical study. Our concerns regarding racism, sexism, homophobia, and other manifestations of oppression are not individualized–they are systematically upheld by the college.

It is to appease these barbarians that the authorities at that college sacrificed their dean. The remaining administrators at Matteo Ricci College and its parent institution, Seattle University, deserve whatever they get from now on.

Crude as he is, Trump seems to get in ways that no other senior Republican gets is the degree to which American politics, cultural and otherwise, have become about raw racial and demographic power. I suppose you could plausibly argue that they always have been, but at least most of us tried to argue in classical liberal terms for a more fair and just society. What Trump seems to be saying is, “And look where that got you, white people.”

Again, this is a dangerous thing to say in a pluralistic democracy, and it troubles me deeply that Trump says it. On the other hand, there is some truth in it. For years I’ve been saying that the militant identity politics practiced by the Left is sooner or later going to call up the same thing on the Right. I do not celebrate this, no how, no way. But then, I have been objecting for years to the way the Left plays this grievance game, especially in the news media. They have played their part in the rise of Trump. They still do.

177 Comments (Open | Close)

177 Comments To "Trump & The Left’s Identity Politics"

#1 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 6, 2016 @ 9:37 am

I will just pip in this again,

using skin color as a fame for nationalism, just does not work, but skin color is a determiner of nothing that cannot be found in other peoples of different colors.

There’s nothing unique about whiteness to nation building. Mexicans have generally been classified as whites in the US. In fact, Mexico has its own hierarchy on the basis of color.

#2 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 6, 2016 @ 9:47 am

“It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the fraud claims at issue in the Trump University case, and Trump’s bombast about building walls and Mexican rapists doesn’t make it relevant.”

Your lens is to narrow. If that prosecution is sustained because Mr. Trump correctly wants to clean up illegal immigration so that the law actually reflects the Constitution and benefits citizens of the US, Mr. Trump does have an issue.

If said prosecution is being sustained merely to damage Mr. Trump political , personal and professional life, that’s called malicious prosecution. A tactic that is not unusual among one’ enemies, even on one does not know he said enemies.

And judge who is a member of an organization that undermines the US legal frames is suspect on its face. La Raza is a criminal enterprise bent on undermining the Sovereignty of the US.

And the judge knows this and in aiding and abetting them. As long as Mr. trump places the US first he is in good stead.

#3 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 6, 2016 @ 10:07 am

“A lofty sentiment… but much of the drum beating for war with Mexico came from men dreaming of an expanded empire for slavery.’

You are of course missing the point, but ok, I think this is short work.

The US defeated Mexico. And did so thoroughly. The fact is that the US did not expand into Mexican territory as an extension of the the US. So your suggestion about who engineered what is idle. They territory they claimed was purchased.

You are of course encouraged to take a look at the record. The constant border skirmishes between Texans and Mexicans — the military — ultimately led to the Mexican War.

Your entire Thoreauian conspiracy is undermined by the facts. The slave owners, were not in agreement about Texas annexation, but more importantly, the US did not enter the Texas rebellion against Mexico. If as you say there was some significant slave holder machinations, surely that would have been the time.

Since you rather, nibble on the grasses of conspiracy as the meat of your response, I won’t bother retelling why Mexico lost the southwest – Texas in particular. But here’a hint,

check Mexican immigration policy and practice.

Why you are making issue with what I acknowledged was just an idea. Because,, Unless the US by some ordered standard, shipped out free blacks — no kidding the US had no intention of ending slavery.

Twisting my comment to make a point pivoting on an incorrect accounting the historical record s you have done is clearly an elaborate strawman. The tend of my point indicates that the US intended to maintain slavery — hence — they did not establish a state for blacks in Mexico. In otherwords, the intimate relations with Mexicans has a long and deep history and as now — has been at the expense of blacks.

An examination of that history dating before the Texas rebellion, makes it clear — build a wall. Based on the historical knowledge of the above – we need a Mr. Trump now more than ever.

Next you’ll be telling me the civil war was to free slaves. Oy ve’

#4 Comment By M_Young On June 6, 2016 @ 10:42 am

Aaron, most Mexicans (proper) or Chicanos/Latinos/Hispanics are pretty loathe to admit that the US is better than Mexico. You might get…”well, yeah, the US is better in living conditions, but that’s because the US stole half our country”* or “the US has extracted wealth from Mexico via neolibralism” or whatever.

And while I know just about zero blacks closely (my county is only 2% black), I know there is an element of ‘we was kings and queens’ before the European came.

POCs are pretty loathe to admit the US is better without telling you why (or criminal past).

*The half with the good roads no less.

#5 Comment By M_Young On June 6, 2016 @ 10:51 am

“He is not and never has been a member of a a racialist group. You are confusing the group “National Committee of La Raza”
with an unrelated lawyers organization with a similarity in name but is not racist. Membership in a racist organization would have disqualify him from appointment.

It’s an understandable mistake. They all look alike, too.

Uh, no. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers association is an affiliate of the larger California La Raza lawyers association. As I, and Glaivester, have pointed out, that organization promotes ‘the interest of Latino communities throughout California’. That’s racialist in my book and any fair minded person’s book. (Just switch ‘white’ in for Latino).

And you are dreaming if you think membership in racialist organizations for non-whites is disqualifying for anything in the US. Okay, maybe New Black Panthers or NOI, but ‘moderate’ POC racialism is quite tolerated, even encouraged.

#6 Comment By Louis Becker On June 6, 2016 @ 11:44 am

Had Trump simply said tha judge Curiel is a member of La Raza, he would have a winning argument. But instead he puts his foot in his mouth and the media makes him look like an idiot with his ethnic attack.

#7 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 6, 2016 @ 12:51 pm

” . . . but ‘moderate’ POC racialism is quite tolerated, even encouraged.”

Laughing.

There ain’t nothin’ moderate about La Raza.

#8 Comment By jrm On June 6, 2016 @ 2:43 pm

“As I, and Glaivester, have pointed out, that organization promotes ‘the interest of Latino communities throughout California’. That’s racialist in my book and any fair minded person’s book. (Just switch ‘white’ in for Latino).”

Well then you two are projecting your own attitudes onto others.

There are a number of lawyers’ affinity organizations.

Here, for example, is the Irish American Bar Association (picked at random, because I’m Irish):

“The Irish American Bar Association is committed to increasing appreciation and awareness of Irish history and culture through professional, social and recreational activities in the broader Los Angeles legal community. In doing so we advocate human and civil rights for members of all religions in a unified Irish nation, and fair and equal treatment of Irish Americans at home and abroad.”

Expressions of solidarity are not racialist, so I reject your premises. I easily replaced a white nationality for “Latino” for example.

Lawyers and judges take an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. They can be discipled and even disbarred if they violate that oath.

You are dreaming if you think a person espousing racialist ideas of any variety would be appointed to a US District Court judgeship by any President of the United States and confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate.

You are in conspiracy territory here. The judge here has not ever been criticized for any analysis set out in his rulings. He honesty has never been challenged. The sole reason for Trump’s attack is that the Judge is Mexican.

How many generations of ancestors must a birthright American citizen have before he is no longer considered “Mexican?”

That’s the racialist comment right there. In Trump’s eyes, if you have Mexican ancestry, you are not truly an American–you can’t be trusted.

#9 Comment By JonF On June 6, 2016 @ 4:12 pm

So I suppose the NAACP is also a “racialist” organization, and that would preclude any black judges who belong to it?

#10 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 6, 2016 @ 4:42 pm

The US defeated Mexico. And did so thoroughly. The fact is that the US did not expand into Mexican territory as an extension of the the US. So your suggestion about who engineered what is idle. They territory they claimed was purchased.

Ah, what an embarrasse des richesses as Lenin used to say when preparing to skewer Karl Kautsky.

“The U.S. did not expand into Mexican territory as an extension of the U.S.” So what country are New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, Nevada, and portions of a few other states part of? France? Brazil?

They territory they claimed was purchased.

Yes, at gunpoint. It was, relatively speaking, conquest on a slightly higher plane to offer some money in exchange for territory transferred as part of a treaty signed while in military occupation of the enemy’s capital city and some of its principle ports.

After that level of delusion, one wonders if it is worth wading into the rest of it.

The U.S. indeed did not wade into the Texas rebellion and secession from Mexico, but, the U.S. did, after a time, accept the annexation of Texas, which was bankrupt and in constant danger of reconquest as far as its own treasury and military forces were concerned. And THEN, with Texas a state of the United States, the administration in power sent troops into territory disputed between Texas and Mexico, and then between the United States and Mexico, touching off a declaration of war. Sort of like, if the British had held several forts in the Ohio and Great Lakes country, and claimed it wasn’t part of the territory ceded to the United States in 1783, the U.S. might have gone to war… oh wait, we did, in 1812.

As for facts about the desires of slave owners, you might start with Albert G. Brown’s statement, “I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason for the planting and spreading of slavery.”

Then there is the debate about the Wilmot Proviso. Wilmot was a racist, he wanted land for free white people to work without any Negroes around (M_Young might adopt him as a hero) but the content of the debate clearly shows the interests of the southern slave owning class, and those who opposed them.

Keep twisting elite… a stopped clock is right twice a day. You may get lucky.

It’s funny how only White identity gets deconstructed — not black identity

“White identity” started the whole shabby drama, a mere 500 years ago. “Black identity” is mostly defensive in nature. Two things will erase “black identity.” One is people throwing away the silly label “white” so that there isn’t anything to be defensive about. The other is successful “black” people finding that the “black” underclass, increasingly merging with the “white” thugs, is their enemy, not their friend. Both are happening.

(a) White is an umbrella term for all European ethnic identities.

Invented in the Americas, and only secondarily adopted in Europe, where if you remember, reassertion of national identity is a big issue right now…

You do not want your grandchildren to be the new Afrikaners, but what if you knew that your grandchildren would not be white?

Cool. Mix it up!. The more mixed we are, the less we will be able to figure out who hates who for what.

#11 Comment By Fran Macadam On June 6, 2016 @ 9:45 pm

“[NFR: I feel compelled to say that you are making an ironic allusion to what an undiplomatic European diplomat called Israel at a dinner party. If you didn’t mean it ironically, and if you weren’t Jewish, I wouldn’t have posted it. — RD]”

I knew Barbara Amiel, who arrived from Britain as a Jewish orphan, and grew to become the editor of a great metropolitan newspaper, supposedly a conservative, before she turned out to be a monarchist and Lady Conrad Black. One of the fraud case against Black’s more spectacular moments, (Black was not only an arrogant financial elitist but is a credible historian with good words for FDR) was her close to million dollar birthday party Black paid for out of shareholder funds. Not only did I lose Barb’s home phone number, I lost faith in her integrity – she’s loyal, but to her own. And she’s the one who reported that statement out of turn while at a conclave of the rich. Oh, well, she has her reward.

#12 Comment By Fran Macadam On June 6, 2016 @ 9:51 pm

I gotta say, from the comments, all sides completely misunderstand what I said. Think you need to go back and take it for what was said, not read a preconceived notion into it.

However, maybe there’s no cure for not getting it, other than this side of being in Christ. Which isn’t an arrogant position, since it’s available to anyone.

Since the allusion is to scripture, I think it must be that the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world, and that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, scripture is misunderstood.

#13 Comment By M_Young On June 7, 2016 @ 12:12 am

“So I suppose the NAACP is also a “racialist” organization, and that would preclude any black judges who belong to it?”

Most definitely on the first, would depend on the trial subject matter and context on the second.

#14 Comment By M_Young On June 7, 2016 @ 12:17 am

Siarlys, the SW United States were under Mexican rule — barely — for all of 36 years (and that’s being generous). During that time there were several rebellions, by Spanish speakers, against rule from Mexico. The territory was essentially up for grabs.

#15 Comment By M_Young On June 7, 2016 @ 12:20 am

““The Irish American Bar Association is committed to increasing appreciation and awareness of Irish history and culture through professional, social and recreational activities in the broader Los Angeles legal community. In doing so we advocate human and civil rights for members of all religions in a unified Irish nation, and fair and equal treatment of Irish Americans at home and abroad.””

Still waiting for the equivalent of ‘pursue the interest of ‘Latino’ communities’. Not here that the Irish American legal association only advocates fair and equal treatment of Irish Americans (advocacy for individuals). And not that the object of their concern is, as some would say here, an ‘actual’ nationality. ‘Latino’ is not a nationality, and in fact according to La Raza ideology it signifies a race.

But keep swinging — each whiff makes my case stronger.

#16 Comment By M_Young On June 7, 2016 @ 12:21 am

“How many generations of ancestors must a birthright American citizen have before he is no longer considered “Mexican?””

Maybe enough that he doesn’t feel that he needs to ‘pursue the interests of Latino communities’.

#17 Comment By M_Young On June 7, 2016 @ 12:22 am

“You are dreaming if you think a person espousing racialist ideas of any variety would be appointed to a US District Court judgeship by any President of the United States and confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate.”

See Sotomayor.

#18 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On June 7, 2016 @ 8:17 am

“I gotta say, from the comments, all sides completely misunderstand what I said. Think you need to go back and take it for what was said, not read a preconceived notion into it. However, maybe there’s no cure for not getting it, other than this side of being in Christ. Which isn’t an arrogant position, since it’s available to anyone.”

This is a verbose way of avoiding considering that maybe you were wrong.

#19 Comment By John Barry On June 7, 2016 @ 10:16 am

So… the left is partially to blame for the rise of Trump? The author thinks so. He concludes that Trump “seems” to be saying “look where that got you, white people” after the left has ruined things by claiming that minorities be given special privileges.

But that’s not what Trump said in this case. He stated Judge Curiel is biased because he is Mexican.

It was a nice try, helping Trump along, by trying pin the blame on the left and deflect the issue at hand away from the issue at hand.

One thing the left must be happy about is the way Trump has attacked Judge Curiel on racial grounds. It’s going to hurt him in November.

#20 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On June 7, 2016 @ 11:26 am

You do not want your grandchildren to be the new Afrikaners, but what if you knew that your grandchildren would not be white?

Wouldn’t it be nice if people started making decisions about social policy based on the common good, rather than ‘what would be good for my family?”

#21 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On June 7, 2016 @ 11:30 am

“White” is not an ethnic identity. “Whiteya” is not a nation. People going on and on about their Whiteness aren’t ethnic Christians, they are arbitrary worshippers-of-something-far-less-concrete-than-Frenchness.

Slavic nationalism is vague and blurry, but an actual cultural thing. Germanic nationalism is vague and blurry, but an actual thing. Nordic nationalism is vague and blurry, but an actual thing. Hispanic nationalism is vague and blurry, but an actual thing. Yoruba nationalism is vague and blurry, but an actual thing. Anyone exalting any of these things to a near-equal level to their Faith is at least exalting something that demonstrably exists.

“White” nationalism, by contrast, is a fantasy grounded in nothing. Anyone exalting it is elevating a convenient fiction. Anyone thinking that such a “nationalism” is even close to co-equal to their Faith is effectively calling their entire Faith a convenient fiction.

This is all true, but the heart of the immigration debates going on these days center around Europe, and European countries definitely do have distinct ethnic and cultural identities. The immigration skeptics in England don’t want to see mass immigration from Poland any more than they want to see it from Pakistan (though in fairness at least the Poles are less different from the English than they are from Pakistanis).

#22 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 7, 2016 @ 12:03 pm

“Yes, at gunpoint. It was, relatively speaking, conquest on a slightly higher plane to offer some money in exchange for territory transferred as part of a treaty signed while in military occupation of the enemy’s capital city and some of its principle ports.”

I will sidestep the personal attacks. But the above comment is interesting.

Laughing. and laughing. If you cross the border and start a fight subsequently lose that fight, it has been customary for the winner to take all. Should the winner instead of taking all — pay you for you have lost – that’s generosity.

I don’t think you have a firm grip of what the phrase of

” . . . at gun point means.”

You remind of the continued debate about the Japanese and the atomic bomb(s). If you shoot me in the back with .22 and I survive to respond in self defense. Don’t call me a big meanie because I shoot you with both barrels of of my shotgun.
————————
“The U.S. indeed did not wade into the Texas rebellion and secession from Mexico, but, the U.S. did, after a time, accept the annexation of Texas, which was bankrupt and in constant danger of reconquest as far as its own treasury and military forces were concerned. And THEN, with Texas a state of the United States, the administration in power sent troops into territory disputed between Texas and Mexico, and then between the United States and Mexico, touching off a declaration of war. Sort of like, if the British had held several forts in the Ohio and Great Lakes country, and claimed it wasn’t part of the territory ceded to the United States in 1783, the U.S. might have gone to war… oh wait, we did, in 1812.”

I don’t have much of a response to recounting the fact that the US annexed Texas. I am not sure of your point here, Mexico lost Texas (again check their careless immigration policy) The Texans with great forsight, sought entry into the union. And the US with great forsight — did so. You seem to think this is somehow helpful to your complaint. So Mexico lost two causes. First, because General Santa Anna chose to treat them lightly and was caught dead asleep by a band of marauders. That’s not a conspiracy that was a strategic error. A reminder one should treat invaders with no quarter, l’est they conquer you in your sleep.

Angry at the loss, and not changing their immigration behavior at all. Mexico proceeds to engage in borer raids, even after the annexation of the Republic of Mexico. Eventually the US declares war – Mexico loses, undermined of course by their own citizen’s, especially foreign immigrants from the East — nothing like an immigration policy that requires nothing but cheap labor.

But we do agree on this point — the US had no intention of redressing slaves or free blacks. Further, your recounting demonstrates my overall position here —

The US is kinder to her enemies than her own blacks in the country – compensating them even they lose.

Your so intent on making an argument, you are willing to ignore the advance I am making in lieu of some made up notion which;

1. reinforces the case I present

2. extends the same.

3. stands regardless of sides about slave owners and the lost War of 1812.

If you think the only reason for expanding the size of the country was to expand slavery, then you don’t get the country.

Side note: Mexico did not effectively enforce it’s anti-slavery laws on the immigrants from the east. And most of the time, had no intention of doing so — I won’t explain to you why making a contention about slavery expansion is like arguing over a blade of grass being a slightly less green than the rest or the length of straw in a bail of straw.

#23 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 7, 2016 @ 12:16 pm

Siarlys, the SW United States were under Mexican rule — barely — for all of 36 years (and that’s being generous). During that time there were several rebellions, by Spanish speakers, against rule from Mexico. The territory was essentially up for grabs.

Except for your conclusory last sentence, these are all true statements — although before it was Mexican territory, it was Spanish territory. What relevance does this have to anything under discussion here?

I thought you were an advocate of borders. Apparently some Mexican drug cartels have found the more remote areas of some of our national parks “up for grabs.” Indeed, they are uninhabited and lightly policed. Is this OK?

#24 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 7, 2016 @ 12:43 pm

Elite… to the true believer, ANYTHING anyone else says merely reinforces their own self-righteous claim. If I thought anyone would take your latest argument seriously, I would dissect it in more detail. I wouldn’t even try to persuade you.

#25 Comment By JonF On June 7, 2016 @ 1:16 pm

Re: If you cross the border and start a fight subsequently lose that fight, it has been customary for the winner to take all.

By the mid 19th century certain international norms were hardening in regards to national boundaries: except in cases of very old historical disputes ( e.g., Alsace-Lorraine) they were to be respected and only altered on mutual consent. The Europeans it is true ignored that notion entirely in Africa and parts of Asia, but in the New World the United States was a major advocate of stability– hence the Monroe Doctrine– except of course when applied to itself.

#26 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 7, 2016 @ 9:38 pm

Adding a relevant detail to JonF’s overview, there was no clear and definite treaty recognizing Texas independence. Santa Ana agreed to whatever would get him released, the Mexican government renounced it, there was no meeting of diplomats around a table to set it all down in detail and affix authorized signatures.

One result is that Mexico insisted that the boundary of the former state of Tejas, now operating de facto as an independent republic, was the Nueces River. The government of said republic insisted to the contrary that the boundary was the Rio Grande. Thus, when the U.S., having annexed Texas, sent federal troops across the Nueces, Mexico considered that an invasion of its sovereign territory. The occasion for war was, of course, that the U.S. asserted that any Mexican soldier north of the Rio Grande had invaded ITS sovereign territory.

#27 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 7, 2016 @ 9:53 pm

“Elite… to the true believer, ANYTHING anyone else says merely reinforces their own self-righteous claim. If I thought anyone would take your latest argument seriously, I would dissect it in more detail. I wouldn’t even try to persuade you.”

I am not sure there is anything to persuade me of.

You make an argument based on a position I admit from the start was speculative (slaves, free blacks and compensation or relocation, etc.) but more importantly why there’s a strong case for reinforcing our immigration laws.

You suggest that the reason for said expansion was to expand slavery. Basically, I can just shrug my shoulders and say so what. It’s irrelevant. The issue here pertains to enforcing the laws on the US.

Secondary is how and why Mexico lost the territories she claimed. Again, a look at Mexico’s immigration policy makes the it fairly obvious why. Not the only reason, but certainly one of the most important, if not of primary importance.

I have no idea what the premature and unnecessary attack by the US against the British answers those questions. Clearly the British did not retain those territories in the US she clearly won in battle. The US did retain a portion o what she won and paid for them as well. So any notion of theft even by revisionists must be dismissed. If you don’t want your immigrants to fight for the otherside it might be worth the effort to actually demand their loyalty by earning the right to own and work the land you desire they protect. Or one morning you may find those same people, giving you the boot from your own land.

Now if one chooses the post modern contend of pre-ownership. I would expect that you favor that the Mexicans return stolen land back to the “The ten largest indigenous language groups are Náhuatl (22.7% of indigenous language speakers), Maya (13.5%), Zapoteco (7.6%), Mixteco (7.3%) Otomí (5.3%), Tzeltal (5.3%), Tztotzil (4.3%), Totonaca (3.9%), Mazateco (3.2%) and Chol (2.4%).(3). The larger languages include several very distinct variants” people. So before any liberal comes barking up my tree with false accusations of US theft of Mexican territory, I must ask when the Mexicans intend to return and compensate them for the devastation they have visited upon the same. all of the territory is inherited from Spain.

As for my righteousness, what ever I have in such a stead is derived from Christ and him alone. As for the claims, I am a US citizen and until such time as the country is actually taken over by Mexico, I intend to rest on both the rights and responsibilities I have a citizen, and that includes the right to challenge anyone here illegally to any property physical or intellectual owned and paid for with blood of citizens. Further, I challenge any so called citizen who deems the rights of illegal people on equal footing or superior to the citizens on the US.

My fellow citizens come first in these US regardless of how much I like them or they me. You spent no small effort in both attempting to persuade and insult with a fairly inaccurately placed analysis, about history you spread across time and space. My position on immigration is far more restrictive than Mr. Trump’s and most others. And both history, the law, purpose and data make my position easy to support.

It might be a good idea that you wade in the waters of liberal notions that embrace transgender, and those who choose homosexual relations where it’s easier to skate on false historical and hysterical claims as they are being made up as they go along. Or perhaps, dance in the liberal quagmire of feminist studies, where feeling is reality.

But the history of immigration policy is on the record and in keeping with the practices of other states.

As for my place on this site. There’s a certain comfort and strength knowing I am in enemy territory.